NRA wants to raise your taxes

The NRA proclaims that having police officers in all schools will prevent more shootings.  Is the NRA willing to pay the taxes for tens of thousands of police officers?

There are about 99,000 public K-12 schools in the U.S. and the average police officer is paid about $50,000.  That's nearly five billion dollars.  If there are an average of two school shootings per year, that's over two billion dollars to prevent a single school shooting.  Would the NRA agree to a sales tax on guns to pay for these police officers?

Over ten million guns were sold in the U.S in 2011.  To fund the NRA's protection plan would require a $500 tax on each gun sale.  I doubt the NRA would accept that tax.

There were 93 million children enrolled in public schools in 2010.  If we taxed the parents for police officers in their children's schools, that would be about $54 per child.  So, all parents would be required to pay $54 per child so that the NRA can keep gun regulations to a minimum.  Sounds fair, not!

However, what would be assurance that said police officers would reduce school shooting deaths to zero?  The NRA is watching too many westerns where the good guys can shoot an apple out a tree, even from the hip!  The reality is that many police officers themselves are victims of mass murderers.

Sgt. Kimberly Munley, the first police officer on the scene at the Ft. Hood mass shooting, is a member of a SWAT team and an advanced firearms instructor.  Maj. Hassan, the shooter, wounded her at least twice, and supposedly he was able to kick her gun out of her reach.  Whether she wounded him sufficiently to subdue him or her partner did so is not clear from what I read.

In another case, New York Police wounded nine bystanders trying to take down a gunman on a city street.

The NRA also claims that more armed citizens will prevent mass murders.  In the Arizona shooting in which Rep. Gabby Giffords was wounded, one armed citizen almost shot the wrong person in the melee.

Several commentators are pointing out that the NRA is not so much about the right to bear arms but the right of gun makers to sell arms.

Hunters should oppose "shoot first" laws

Imagine you are hunting on Federal, state, or county land.  You think you know where the boundaries are, but without precise GPS knowledge, you can't be sure.  Suddenly, somebody challenges you claiming that you are trespassing.  You start to protest, but blam!  You're dead.

Your killer was right that you were trespassing, you were carrying a loaded gun, and so he claimed self-defense.

What if you're walking on the road and pass somebody's property.  For whatever reason the person shoots you.  Your killer claims self-defense.  You were carrying a gun and there are no witnesses.

These kinds of shootings have occurred.  There was a case in Wisconsin a few years ago where a group challenged a hunter because they believed he was trespassing.  He shot and killed at least five of them.  He did claim self-defense, but the survivors claimed otherwise.  I believe that hunter is in jail.

But if there are no witnesses and no survivors, who is going to prove that the shooting was not in self-defense?

The "shoot first" laws make it a bit unwise to enjoy the solitude of hunting alone.